To return to the new Peace Now website click here.

APN Legislative Round-Up for the week ending July 1, 2011

=======================
APN Legislative Round-Up
       for the week ending
         July 1, 2011
=======================

1.  Bills, Resolutions & Letters
2.  Cardin & Collins Grandstand at the Expense of Peace (on S. Res. 185)
3.  APN on the Flotilla
4.  Members of Congress Urge Admin to Ensure Safety of Amcits on the Flotilla
5.  Coats (R-IN) pitches for military action against Iran (kinda)
6.  Odds & Ends

NOTE:  H. Res. 268 - the House companion to S. Res. 185 - is on the House suspension calendar for July 6, 2011.

1.  Bills, Resolutions & Letters

(Palestinian Bashing) S. Res. 185:  Introduced 5/16/11 by Sens. Cardin (D-MD) and Collins (R-ME),  "A resolution reaffirming the commitment of the United States to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, reaffirming opposition to the inclusion of Hamas in a unity government unless it is willing to accept peace with Israel and renounce violence, and declaring that Palestinian efforts to gain recognition of a state outside direct negotiations demonstrates absence of a good faith commitment to peace negotiations, and will have implications for continued United States aid."  Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.  On 6/28/11 the resolution was brought to the floor (bypassing the committee process), where it was agreed to by Unanimous Consent (no roll call vote, no objections).

This resolution was one of the main focal points of AIPAC lobbying on the Hill last month and in the days since, with strong pressure on members to cosponsor.  Members of Congress understand that whether or not they cosponsor this kind of measure will be "scored" by AIPAC - for an example of such scoring, see these scanned pages from one of AIPAC's election "Insider" booklets.  A little over a month of lobbying yielded a total of 89 cosponsors (90, if you include Cardin).

APN strongly opposes S. Res. 185, along with its companion House version, H. Res. 268, and previously urged members of Congress to refuse to cosponsor the measures and to vote against them.

2.  Cardin & Collins Grandstand at the Expense of Peace (on S. Res. 185)

Senators Cardin (D-MD) and Collins (R-ME) exulted in the 6/28/11 passage of AIPAC-backed S. Res. 185.  However, just expressing their joy at the passage of the resolution was apparently not sufficient for these two senators.  Both made long statements on the record that in fact went far beyond the already extremely problematic message of the resolution.

Collins (R-ME), 6/29/11 (in a statement entitled, oddly enough, "Palestine"

"Madam President, last night, the Senate unanimously approved S. Res. 185, a resolution I introduced with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin. Our resolution sends a clear message to the Palestinian Authority that any effort to seek unilateral recognition at the United Nations will have serious consequences for future American aid to the Palestinians.

"The United States provides nearly $550 million each year in bilateral assistance to the Palestinians. This aid is not an entitlement, particularly at a time when we have an unsustainable debt of some $14 trillion. Rather, this aid is predicated on a good-faith commitment from the Palestinians to the peace process.

"By unanimously passing our resolution last evening, the Senate has sent an unmistakable message that efforts by the Palestinians to seek independent statehood outside of direct negotiations with Israel do not reflect good-faith actions toward peace.

"Negotiations have been a fundamental principle of the peace process. It was in September of 1993 when Yasser Arafat committed to Israeli Prime Minister Rabin that outstanding issues would be resolved through negotiations. This principle has also underpinned the Oslo Accords, the Road Map for Peace, and other Middle East peace efforts.

"We want to see a true and lasting peace between two states--a democratic Jewish State of Israel and a viable democratic Palestinian State. Since 2002, it has been the policy of our country to support a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but the road to peace is through negotiations, not by subverting them and making a unilateral case before the United Nations.

"Unfortunately, the United Nations has a well-documented record of being hijacked to chastise Israel, one of America's closest allies. In total, the United States, under Presidents of both political parties, has been forced to veto 11 different U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

"I am pleased to note that the current U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, has vetoed the latest U.N. resolution regarding settlements, which, like Palestinian statehood, is the key issue in the peace process. The resolution passed by the Senate urges the President to maintain this strong position and to announce his unwavering intent to veto any resolution that is not the result of direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

"I wish to thank Senator Cardin for working with me in drafting this resolution. When Senator Cardin and I first discussed introducing this measure, the Palestinian Authority had not yet agreed to establish a unity government with Hamas--a truly disastrous decision. That action has made it all that much more critical that the Senate be firmly on record that aid to the Palestinians is now in jeopardy. If Hamas continues to reject negotiations or peace with Israel, we must suspend this assistance.

"During his address before a joint session of Congress in March, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu succinctly described the heart of the matter. He said:  'This conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. '
 
"We must remember those words.  We must also never forget that Hamas is responsible for the deaths of more than 500 innocent civilians, including two dozen American citizens. It has been designated by our government as a foreign terrorist organization and a specially designated terrorist organization.

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made it clear that the United States will not fund a Palestinian Government that includes Hamas unless and until Hamas renounces violence, recognizes Israel, and agrees to abide by the previous obligation of the Palestinian Authority. I urge the administration to suspend aid until such time as Hamas demonstrates a clear commitment to following these principles.

"Madam President, let me also thank the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, for discharging this resolution so that it could be considered and passed by the full Senate before our Fourth of July recess. The passage of this resolution could not have been more timely.

"According to press reports, the Palestinian delegation has made the rounds with nearly a dozen delegations in New York this week to build support for their bid to have a United Nations-recognized state. Palestinian Ambassadors from around the world are meeting in July to discuss their plans in Madrid. They have been instructed to cancel vacations because of the importance of this coming period.

"I submit that if the Palestinians were only willing to invest as much energy into the peace process with Israel as they have into this ill-advised rush to the United Nations, we could see the beginnings of a genuine and lasting peace in the region. I do not know if the Palestinians will have the support among the 192 members of the U.N. General Assembly. However, the Palestinians must understand that the cost of seeking such a vote will seriously jeopardize U.S. financial assistance and that is evident from the 88 Members of the Senate who cosponsored the important resolution that was unanimously passed last evening."

Cardin (D-MD), 6/29/11

"Mr. President, last night, S. Res. 185, a resolution that was cosponsored by about 90 percent of the Senate, passed the Senate by unanimous consent. I am very grateful to my colleagues for their help in developing this resolution. This resolution expresses the strong support of the United States for our closest ally in the Middle East: Israel. I was joined in this effort by my good friend, Senator Susan Collins from Maine. The two of us worked together to draft this resolution, and we are grateful that so many of our colleagues joined us in the process and that it has now passed the Senate by a unanimous vote.

"This resolution first and foremost expresses our strong support for Israel. It recognizes that these are extremely challenging times. It expresses our support for peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis and recognizes that the only way we are going to be able to move forward on the peace process is through direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That is the only way we can resolve these longstanding issues in order to achieve peace in that region.

"The resolution also reaffirms our opposition to the inclusion of Hamas in any Palestinian unity government unless it is willing to accept peace with Israel and renounce violence. An entity cannot negotiate with those sworn to bring about its destruction; therefore, Hamas' inclusion in the Palestinian Government is a nonstarter for any possibility for peace.

"Any unilateral attempt by the United Nations to establish a Palestinian State is detrimental to any final peace agreement. A permanent and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Any Palestinian effort to gain recognition of a state outside of direct negotiations demonstrates their lack of a good-faith commitment to peace negotiations. The Senate is now firmly on record that this kind of action would be directly counterproductive to peace. If the Palestinians pursue this, it may well have implications for the continued U.S. participation with the Palestinians.

"Israel has always been willing to come to the peace table for direct negotiations. Quite frankly, it has been the Palestinians who have been dragging their feet for many months, refusing to have direct negotiations between the parties, which is the only way it can be accomplished. Lasting peace can only come through direct negotiations that settle all outstanding issues to the satisfaction of both sides. Obviously, there is going to be give-and-take. There has to be give-and-take. There has to be mutual respect and security, and that requires active participation in the peace talks.

"The two sides can achieve a peace agreement only when they acknowledge each other's right to exist. That is pretty fundamental. This is particularly critical now for the Palestinians and their unity government that includes Hamas. Unless Hamas fully renounces violence and acknowledges Israel's right to exist, it cannot be a partner of peace and their inclusion in the Palestinian Government is a major obstacle.

"As Prime Minister Netanyahu stated so well in his speech before the joint session of Congress in May:   I will accept a Palestinian state. It is time for President Abbas--  President Abbas, of course, is the head of the Palestinians--  to stand before his people and say: 'I will accept a Jewish State.'

"It is clear it is in the interest of all parties for there to be two states--the Jewish State of Israel and the independent Palestinian State--living side by side with secure borders in peace.

"Let me again acknowledge what I think Prime Minister Netanyahu said. Israel is prepared to acknowledge a Palestinian State. It is time for the Palestinians to acknowledge the Jewish State. Difficult negotiations need to take place. There are critical issues such as security, power, and water concerns, as well as larger issues of historical, religious, and territorial matters still to be decided. That must take place through direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This is precisely why it is so important to discuss, negotiate, and ultimately resolve these issues rather than taking unilateral action that would leave them unsettled and unsustainable. Real and lasting peace will only occur at the peace table, and I am grateful the Senate has strongly and unanimously gone on record to affirm this approach."

3.  APN on the Flotilla

On 6/28/11 APN issued the following statement:

On May 31, 2010, Israel confronted an international flotilla seeking to challenge its blockade of Gaza, with tragic results. At that time American for Peace Now (APN) called on Israel to investigate the operation that led to these results and to reassess its Gaza policy. APN noted that the difficult situation presented to Israel by the flotilla underscored the extent to which the continued policy of blockading Gaza was untenable and increasingly indefensible.
 
Now Israel is facing another flotilla, and it appears that another potential debacle is in the making.
 
Let there be no doubt: the organizers of the flotilla are seeking to provoke a confrontation with Israel. In doing so they are playing a dangerous game. None of us knows what the consequences of their actions will be.
 
Israel has no control over the flotilla organizers and participants, but this does not mean that Israel is compelled to accept the role they have assigned to it in a choreographed confrontation. Rather, Israel can and should choose a different role - by making the long-overdue decision to end the blockade and allow the boats to pass. Such a policy shift would avert a pointless confrontation and remove the pretext for future similar provocations. APN renews its longstanding call on Washington to engage the Israeli government to achieve this.
 
In the event that a confrontation does occur, APN calls on both participants in the flotilla and Israeli forces to avoid violence and ensure that the tragedy of 2010 is not repeated.
 
The Gaza blockade is a failed policy. While Israel's closure of Gaza has been eased in the last year to allow the import of many goods and raw materials into the Gaza Strip, the blockade is still part of an overall closure that inflicts collective punishment on the population of Gaza. The blockade has been ineffective as a security measure, failing to block the flow of weapons into Gaza via other means, including through tunnels. It has failed as a tactic to weaken Hamas, and as leverage to free captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Years of the blockade have helped wipe out moderate opposition to Hamas in Gaza and have undermined the legitimacy of moderate leaders like Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad. Moreover, it has become a strategic liability for Israel: keeping the blockade in place harms Israel's relations with important allies, fuels international criticism, undermines Israel's legitimate claims to self-defense, and makes future confrontations - like the 2010 flotilla and the current one - likely.
 
We recognize Israel's right to stop and inspect ships it has genuine reason to believe are seeking to smuggle weapons into Gaza. However, a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip and continued closure of its borders cannot be defended. More effective and defensible measures to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza - both via land and via the sea - must be implemented, in cooperation with Egypt, the United States, and the international community.
 
Finally, while it is true that the flotilla participants are seeking to provoke Israel, and it is certainly possible that some organizers and participants are motivated by genuinely anti-Israel sentiments, Foreign Minister Avigdor Leiberman's characterization of them as "terror activists" is reprehensible. It is consistent with a worrying trend of conflating unarmed protest with violence and terrorism. This is evident in the use of terms like "popular terror" (to describe unarmed protest), "cultural terror" (to describe academic and cultural boycotts), "diplomatic terror" (to describe Palestinian efforts to muster international support and recognition), "economic terror" (to describe boycotts of Israeli settlements products), and "lawfare" (to describe legal challenges to Israeli policy and actions). Such language cheapens the debate, conflicts with Israel's democratic values, and undermines Israel's legitimate position when it acts in genuine self-defense.

4.  Members of Congress Urge Admin to Ensure Safety of Amcits on the Flotilla

On 6/24/11 five members of Congress sent a letter to Secretary of State Clinton urging her to do everything in her power to work with the Israeli government to ensure the safety of American citizens on board the U.S. ship taking part in the Gaza flotilla.

The letter follows statements made by the U.S. State Department, including an updated travel warning issued to U.S. citizens by the State Department, actively discouraging Americans from participating in the flotilla and seeming to imply that U.S. citizens who do so are pretty much on their own (the warning also notes that in the last flotilla participants, including one American citizen, were injured and killed by Israeli forces).  Taking things a step further, at least one U.S. official warned these same participants that they may be prosecuted for aiding a terrorist organization, despite the U.S. participants in the flotilla have made clear that they are not bringing anything for Hamas and that their actions are not supportive of Hamas. (For a particularly entertaining exchange between the State Department spokeswoman and journalists on the subject, see here).

****
June 24, 2011

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
United States Department of State
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Clinton,

We write to express our concern for the safety of American passengers on the U.S. ship The Audacity of Hope, which will set sail for Gaza in the next few days. We request that you do everything in your power to work with the Israeli government to ensure the safety of the U.S. citizens on board.

A year ago, Israel took military action against the "Gaza flotilla" in international waters, which resulted in the deaths of nine civilians, including one American citizen. In addition, ten Israeli commandos and more than 20 passengers were injured in this tragic incident. In order to avoid another confrontation this year, we urge all parties to practice maximum restraint and avoid violence.

We wholeheartedly support Israel's right, and indeed its duty, to protect its citizens from security threats. The measures it uses to do so, as in the case with any other nation, must conform to international humanitarian and human rights law. We are encouraged that The Audacity of Hope organizers have stated that their cargo "is open to international inspection" and that they "are fully committed to nonviolence and the tenets of international law".

We look forward to working with you in any way we can and encourage you to ensure the safety of all American citizens on board The Audacity of Hope.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Representative William Lacy Clay (D-MO)
Representative Sam Farr (D-CA)
Representative Bob Filner (D-CA)
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA)

5.  Coats (R-IN) pitches for military action against Iran (kinda)

On 6/30/11, Sen. Coats (R-IN) took to the Senate floor to address a number of issues, including Iran.  The underlying theme of his Iran statement was that military action against Iran is going to almost certainly be necessary (though he emphasized that he is not a "war advocate").  Coats has for some time been working closely with the Bipartisan Policy Center, which has long been extremely hawkish on Iran.  You can see the most recent version of BPC's report on Iran, "Meeting the Challenge - When Time Runs Out" (June 2010), here (the original 2008 version of the report carried the far less hysterical title, "Meeting the Challenge - U.S. policy toward Iranian nuclear development").

The June 2010 BCP report dovetails nicely with the the now famous August 2010 Jeffrey Goldberg piece in the Atlantic, "The Point of No Return," in that both the article and the report make the case that Israel will likely carry out its own military strike against Iran if the U.S. does not follow a more aggressive and effective policy of its own (Goldberg suggested there was a greater than 50% chance of a strike by July 2011).  A year later, Coats appears to be doubling down on this prediction, even while Goldberg and the editor of the Atlantic (commenting today in Salon.com, on the occasion of reaching July 1, 2011, without an Israeli strike on Iran), who both appear to recognize that at least some things may have changed since the summer 2010 prediction were made.

Coats (D-IN), 6/30/11, on Iran

"I came here to talk about another issue, and I wish to do that now. Our necessary focus on the economic situation and what we need to do and the impending debt crisis we are facing should take precedence, but we can't overlook the fact we have serious issues on an international level that will have an impact on our country in the future. Those of us here have a responsibility to deal with not only domestic issues but with international security and foreign policy issues. Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act that was passed by an overwhelming majority--bipartisan majority--in the last Congress. In fact, the vote in the Senate was 99 to 0.
 
"This act expanded sanctions on the Iranian regime as it continues its quest for nuclear weapons capability. Clearly, more needs to be done. I am here to talk about it and the implications, but I needed to say something about what has happened in the previous 24 hours that has been so disconcerting to not only me but to the American people and both Republicans and Democrats who are trying to make a serious effort at solving the problems we face.
 
"Put on the back burner because of all these discussions is this question about Iran and where it is going and what the consequences of the future with a nuclear-armed Iran would be. This month my colleagues and I, because we believe these sanctions have not yet accomplished the goal we have intended and that we need even tougher sanctions against Iran, have introduced a bill entitled 'The Iran, North Korea, and Syria Sanctions Consolidations Act of 2011' that further tightens the noose on the Iranian regime. We need strong support from this body and collective efforts to prevent a nuclear Iran. I will take a few minutes now to explain why I believe this work is of such dramatic and growing importance to our Nation.
 
"The enormous changes being wrought by the Arab spring and the potential consequences--both positive and negative--of that movement have captured our attention. Those of us who care passionately about the future of the Middle East and understand the consequences to our national security as a consequence of that, whether it is economic security because of energy resources we get from the Middle East or whether it is diplomatic security or just national security in terms of conflict that potentially draws us into that effort, all of this is at stake. We are hoping, of course, that the democratic instincts of the Arab spring will develop, but we look at this with a mixture of both hope and concern.
 
"The democratic impulse in the region has not yet brought meaningful change to the Iranian people who continue to suffer under an autocratic, savage, and ruthless regime. As that regime continues to crush every plea for greater democratic liberties, it also pursues its vision of nuclear weapons capability. Welcome signs of democratic progress elsewhere in the region must not deflect our attention from the growing danger in Iran.
 
"Three American Presidents, including this current President, have declared that a nuclear weapons-capable Iran is unacceptable. To give meaning to that repeated commitment to do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from gaining that dangerous capability remains an urgent and highly significant matter facing the United States and international security. The consequences of a nuclear weapons-capable Iran are not tolerable, not acceptable, and must motivate the most powerful and effective efforts possible to prevent that from happening.

"A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten the entire region and its enormous energy resources. It would motivate broad nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East. It would further destabilize the region already in turmoil. It would encourage radicalism and terrorism, and it would threaten the destruction of the State of Israel. This last danger alone--the potential destruction, the declared destruction of the nation of Israel--that alone potentially raises the danger to which Israel is the last resort, but almost certainly we have to respond to it to ensure its survival. That alone compels us to be clear-eyed and determined to find a solution before we have to face that potential decision.
 
"I have been working in recent years with the Bipartisan Policy Center to press for a robust, comprehensive three-track effort to raise the stakes on the Iranian regime and to compel it to live up to its commitments and halt its weapons program. The first track we proposed was enhanced diplomatic efforts. People say, Why diplomatic efforts? That is just going nowhere. We felt we needed to enhance those efforts to at least give that a chance, so that those who would say sanctions should not be imposed until we have tried diplomatic efforts--we said: OK, let's continue to give that a shot, but let's do that in parallel with some of these other approaches. But this enhanced diplomatic effort, where we create and invigorate and motivate an international coalition devoted to the same objective to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, has been tried, and it has not succeeded.
 
"Now, this effort does not mean simply repeated outreaches to the Iranian regime to engage them in dialog. The Obama administration came into office promising such discussions, but this has gone nowhere. International talks in Geneva last year accomplished nothing. Talks in Turkey earlier this year broke down in the afternoon of the very first day. Clearly, lack of any flexibility and goodwill on behalf of the Iranian regime has dissuaded any further attempt to renew dialog efforts. Dialog with the Iranians is in a deep freeze.

"The second track for solutions are sanctions. We currently have the Sanctions Act in place. We want to impose an additional sanctions track. That is why I have sponsored and cosponsored this new act. The impact of this, I think, could potentially be significant. But, so far, we have not seen success as a result of sanctions. Since the international community first began to face this challenge--in the form of IAEA inspections and reports, various U.N. Security Council sanctions resolutions, and protracted negotiations to construct an effective coalition strong enough to have meaning--none of these actions have seriously thwarted the Iranian regime's nuclear ambitions.
 
"That takes us to the third track of a comprehensive approach. Those of us in the Bipartisan Policy Center, working with experts on all sides of this issue, came to the conclusion that certain military options can be put in place that deserve serious and open discussion. Since diplomacy and sanctions have proven to be too weak, we need an extra kick to this process in order to achieve the desired result. I am suggesting discussion and debate and dialogue. No one should suppose that including a military option in this package means anything other than preparing the ground for the logical, necessary access to measures of last resort, should they be needed.
 
"Through the Bipartisan Policy Center, we participated in an exhaustive analysis of all the means and consequences of potential military action against Iran's nuclear weapons program. There were no war advocates in that room--none of us. Nevertheless, if it is true that a nuclear weapons-capable Iran is 'unacceptable,' then our Nation and the international community as a whole must see with vivid clarity what measures remain, should the first two tracks fail.
 
"The Iranian regime must be especially clear-eyed and nondelusional about those potential consequences should it not change its behavior. Indeed, to give the diplomatic and sanctions tracks the essential credibility they require, the military option must be entirely believable. Military options themselves include a multipronged, comprehensive strategy, not all of which are ``kinetic'' or mean an actual attack with our Armed Forces. Such a strategy would include constructing the alliances needed to station U.S. forces in position to confront Iran and then a series of steps designed to demonstrate to Iran that the United States and its coalition partners are capable of decisive military action, if necessary, to stop its nuclear program.
 
"At the end of the day, we have to decide whether we will tolerate an Iran with nuclear weapons. If other States, including, importantly, China and Russia, become convinced of this core reality, they will make different calculations about their own self-interests in this matter. If they come to believe that we so desperately need them to accept modest sanctions on Iran, then they can compel us to take off the table the sanctions proposals with real teeth. We have become hostage to their views on this vital issue and also to their related economic interests. So if these and other States come to realize that when we say ``unacceptable,'' we mean it, they will come to different conclusions about how their own interests can be best served.
 
"In conclusion, a nuclear weapons-capable Iran that we believe can be contained is not one that we are therefore prepared to tolerate. If we think we can solve this problem through diplomatic efforts and sanctions, we have not been able to do so, and the likelihood of doing so diminishes as every day goes by. The nuclear clock keeps ticking in Iran. This is an illusion and one that makes our task much harder. If others, however--especially Iran, but also including our allies and other coalition partners--come to believe that we would consider tolerating a nuclear Iran because it can somehow be contained, then none of this will work. The result then will not be a contained and tolerated nuclear Iran; it will be the military action we all hope to avoid, whether it is ours or another's."

6.  Odds & Ends

JPost 6/30/11: With September looming, unity can't wait - op-ed by Rep. Ackerman (D-NY)
+972 (Israeli blog) 6/29/11: US Senate passes resolution against Palestinian statehood
JTA 6/29/11:  Jewish lawmakers meet in Jerusalem
YNet 6/29/11: US Senate: Cut aid if PA declares state
JTA 6/29/11: U.S. Senate: Palestinians risking aid by seeking statehood vote
JPost 6/29/11: We won't let US derail our statehood bid, says PA official
Haaretz 6/29/11: U.S. Senate passes resolution threatening to suspend aid to Palestinians
NowLebanon 6/29/11:  Aid on the chopping block? [Lebanon aid]
Las Vegas Sun 6/29/11: Harry Reid cheers Senate passage of Palestinian resolution
Bloomberg 6/28/11: U.S. Lawmakers Say Americans in Gaza Flotilla May Be Prosecuted
JPost 6/28/11: Congressmen ask Clinton to protect Americans in flotilla
CNN 6/28/11: U.S. lawmaker on fact-finding mission to Syria [Kucinich, D-OH]
Newsmax 6/28/11: GOP Wants US Envoy to Syria Withdrawn [Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL]
New York Times 6/26/11: Egyptian Leader Assures McCain and Kerry on Transition

Senate Foreign Relations Committee 6/28/11:  The Committee ordered favorably reported the following business items: Anne W. Patterson, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Arab Republic of Egypt, Michael H. Corbin, of California, to be Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, Matthew H. Tueller, of Utah, to be Ambassador to the State of Kuwait, and Susan Laila Ziadeh, of Washington, to be Ambassador to the State of Qatar